Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 5 March	7 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Finney[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Passes WP:NMMA, as she has fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization. Luchuslu (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She does appear to pass WP:NMMA criteria #2, since she fought for a title in Strikeforce, which is considered to be a top tier organization. CaSJer (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes due to her championship fight, although I wonder how she got it with a record that has more losses than wins.Mdtemp (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NMMA criteria #2.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Patt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with only 2 top tier fights and is retired.Mdtemp (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Serra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would have preferred a merge with Serra Longo Jiu Jitsu, but guess there isn't a page for the team he coaches at. Fails WP:NMMA and doesn't have sources for WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Kyung-Ho[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 08:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Manley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Can be recreated when/if he has the 3 required fights.Mdtemp (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson. Recreate after three top-tier bouts. Luchuslu (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson, since he fails WP:NMMA. Redirect is preferable to outright deletion. CaSJer (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motonobu Tezuka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NMMA and already cut from the UFC. Poison Whiskey 15:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can be recreated if he gets a third top-tier bout. Luchuslu (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ducknish (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dvora Bochman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG with only 3500 hits on Google in Western script (I don't know how many in Hebrew). Some of the given sources have nothing to do with mrs. Bochman while her work and exhibitions are also not convincing as work of a great and important artist. The Banner talk 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't looked at the sources, so she may or may not be notable. But there are clearly additional ghits in Hebrew. And of course we don't determine notability by number of ghits. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Also -- the person must be notable by wp standards. Not, as nom suggests is the standard, "great and important".--Epeefleche (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:ARTIST. Artist without any significant critical attention, no evidence that her work is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.Marokwitz (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, due to past interaction problems I had with the article's creator User:OrenBochman I prefer to abstain from voting on the deletion of the article he created. I'll just note that, besides obvious COI problems, about 80% of the article is currently unsourced and if kept it still needs a very strong cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First thank to everyone here on the helpful comments on this article which has been been improved per the AFD notice, by sourcing all the facts which are not considered common knowledge on the subject, such as Exhibitions, Stamp issues per Cavarrone's comment. Though the deletion notice fails to show sufficient WP:Before or an understanding of WP:GNG a legitimate concern has been raised by another. As Such I have edited the article to better indicate that the subject's complies with WP:Artist. Unfortunately most of this work has been deleted because some sources were not available online.... I therefore refer to a historic version of this article: at [1] which contains information showing compliance with WP:Artist as well as WP:GNG. Here is a breakdown of the facts:
- Bochman, an artist and stamp designer (of over 40) stamps in Kenya and Israel has been the subject of significant coverage in independent print periodicals of good repute based in four continents (Africa, Asia, Europe and North America). According to the norms this establishes her notability per ^WP:GNG.
- Bochman is also a notable artist and graphic designer based on the following facts, supporting clauses 4, 5(b), 5(c), 5(d) of WP:artist:
  1. The sources authored by Ndavu Eva; Gacheru Margaret; Ritter Hanit; Ivor Davis; Rimona Schiff and others are by prolific art critics and consist of both facts and criticism of Bochman's philatelic works and art exhibitions. ^{(WP:Artist #4)}
  2. Philatelic materials produced by Bochman are on display in the Alexander Museum of Postal History and Philately as part of its permanent exhibit ^{(WP:Artist #5(d))}
  3. The picture letter to god placed at the entrance of the Eretz Israel museum ^{(WP:Artist #5(d))}
  4. The solo exhibition titled 'creation' at the Rombah Synaogoue in Budapest and elsewhere (deleted) were a significant part of the Summer Jewish Festival 2012 in Budapest (AKA Festival for a Peaceful Coexistence).^{(WP:Artist #5(b))}
  5. Bochman's painting Woomanwood was chosen as picture of the year in 1985.^{(WP:Artist #5(c))} BO | Talk 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - Don't start twisting my words, mr. Bochman. I have removed only that what was unsourced or effectively unsourced (like the stamps about fungi, that were only linked to a site about fungi without info about the designer). What I could not check, is still there. But I did make the comment It would be nice to have a direct link to one of the mentioned articles, if available. And I also like to know what you perceive as my own COI because that is a total mystery to me. The Banner talk 01:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am willing enough to assume good faith in this case, but your accusation that I have a COI, without explanation, while not clear declaring your own, makes that extremely difficult. The fact that sources are out of my reach does not make it easier, nor that the relevant notability guideline WP:ARTIST is used pro and contra the article. But still I am not convinced that mrs Bochman adheres to WP:ARTIST far enough to overcome the COI issues. Sorry. The Banner talk 09:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OrenBochman, first I think that you should disclose you relationship with the subject of this article per WP:COI. While adding reliable sources is a good improvement, I found some of your arguments unconvincing. Where are the sources saying that The picture letter to god is permanently featured at the entrance of the Eretz Israel museum? Or that Woomanwood was chosen as picture of the year in 1985? By whom? I tried searching for periodicals called "viva", "Interlude" and "Givaton" but failed to find evidence for their existence. If you provide stronger evidence for your claims, this could help. Marokwitz (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notice on the page and info on the talk is disclosure enough for me at this point!

Would a photo of viva, interlude & Givaton articles shared via the WWW for a few day be enough ? (note: the Givaton is in Hebrew) BO | Talk 00:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added links to the National Archive version of articles covering the first two exhibitions listed as well as a summary of their content. BO | Talk 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major artworks (the murals) in public places meet WP:ARTIST just as much as if they had been in museums. Probably the stamp designs do also--I don't even think it's necessary to show they're in a philatelic museum. There seems to be adequate documentation for this, though it would help to have quotations from the printed sources. The nom's argument based on ghits is not a criterion--we do not use this for evidence in an AfD one direction or the other. And of course no argument or implication based on requiring only Western script references or only online sources is ever valid. WP covers the world, as long as the articles here are written in English. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with DGG... Stamp designs in particular sways my thinking in this regard. Quotations from sources would be useful / enhance article. (Pcatanese (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep. I've struggled with this one for a week. The ghits in Hebrew, and the fact that we don't determine notability by number of ghits, undermine a basis for this nomination. As does that fact that we do not, as nom suggests is the standard, require that the subject be "great and important". At the same time, notability here is not as apparent per wp standards as I might like. Still, the murals and stamp designs, certainly combined, seem strong enough for a weak keep, per our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Proctor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This is a WP:BLP about an American scientist who has actively sought to promote the idea that he was overlooked for a Nobel Prize, a contention that has never been taken up by secondary sources independent of the subject. To understand this page, it is vital to be familiar with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive. The page subject has created a large drawerful of sockpuppets who created the page, supported one another in editing it, and teamed with one another to argue with (and make personal attacks against) editors who have questioned the subject's notability or proposed deletion. The talk page has seen extensive discussion about notability, and if one overlooks the sock comments, there is a clear consensus that the page fails WP:ACADEMIC, and that the claims about some commercial products promoted by the page subject fail WP:GNG. (See also Talk:Nobel Prize controversies#RfC: Should the 2000 Chemistry section be removed?) Most of the sourcing is not independent of the subject. Thus, no matter how much one looks for additional sourcing or tries to improve the page, it fails WP:BIO and WP:SOAP. We should seriously consider WP:SALT.

Please note that, based upon the socking history, it is extremely probable that single purpose accounts will show up here to defend the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion has continued, it seems to me that the principal remaining issue is whether or not there are works by the subject that have been influential in secondary sources, but which are independent of John McGinness, whose notability is not being challenged in this discussion. Simply having been once associated with a notable person does not confer notability. I'm open to being proven wrong, but it looks to me like such publications do not exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has caused WP nothing but grief. User:Pproctor created the article about himself, and has inserted large amounts of vanity material in it and in other WP articles. Proctor is now banned for sockpuppetry, and most vanity material has been removed. Should the Peter Proctor article remain? There are very few secondary sources that mention Proctor, but WP:SELFPUB does permit his own writings to be used to a limited extent. Most of the sources used in the article used aren't self-published: they are written by Proctor and published in journals, so that make them valid: but still primary sources, not 2ndary. User:Jesanj, on Proctor's talk page, said that Proctors h-index is 49, which may demonstrate that he does deserve an article. I was not able to confirm Proctor's h-index value, nor am I familiar with any convention adopted in AfD that h-indexes above a certain threshold are legitimate. If an article is kept, it should focus on 2ndary sources, and hence will be very small. I'm tempted to !vote Delete just because Proctor has caused WP so much trouble, but that would be punitive. So, I'll just post this comment. --Noleander (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you that being punitive is not a valid reason for deletion. But, in my understanding of things, failure to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:SOAP is an entirely valid reason to delete, and that is what my nomination argues. I have, obviously, also pointed out the disruption, but my purpose there was to (1) make it harder for disruption to continue during the AfD discussion, and (2) make it clearer to previously uninvolved editors in this discussion what was going on, should that disruption re-emerge. About the self-published primary sources, WP:GNG requires sourcing that is independent of the subject; thus, although such primary sources satisfy WP:RS when used properly, they do not establish notability. The few truly independent secondary sources on the page do not help with notability, since they are merely cited as scientific background, without reflecting on the notability of the subject. Relying on an h-index to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC is tricky, and I would be reluctant to accept a value mentioned on a talk page without verifiable sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sympathetic to Noleander's views. But we can still recommend deletion even if the article's author is just a flagrant, serial, bullying (via socks) abuser of Wikipedia to misrepresent areas of science. My recommendation to delete is based on the absence of external recognition - no awards, no honorary titles (xyz professor of X), no lauded books, no lectureships (plenary lecture on abc), no stature conferred from sources of conventional authority. Since 99% of article was written by Proctor about Proctor, if we allow the article stand, we are tacitly allowing editors to write autobiographies.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. More than 15 known socks have been implicated to be used by Proctor prior to January, 2013. Since January 2013, when this series of investigations took a serious turn, several new editors have popped up, each with an amazingly singular focus on this relatively obscure topic. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest that the two following articles be considered together, because while not intrinsic they share an indisputable history

1. John McGinness Article, created & edited by Pproctor - no consensus reached on it, perhaps consensus building could be directed here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_McGinness

2. Peter H. Proctor Article edited by Nucleoliphic who may = John McGinness hypothesis?

I do not know if this is related to the sock investigation but could there possibly perhaps may of been 2 masters? Could Nucleoliphic perhaps = McGinness, because they may of created & edited each others pages, due to the Phd in related to physics on talk pg of Nucleoliphic & Nucleoliphic says he is not Pproctor but meets him at board meetings which would make sense since they both currently serve on the same less then 5 member Board of Directors I found of both Novelta and Nanoflux Tech. Holdings? Diagram showing connections listed at Corporation Wiki under Peter H. Proctor executive profile. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=peter+h.+proctor+executive+profile+&oq=peter+h.+proctor+executive+profile+&gs_l=hp.3...539.16643.0.17746.58.47.8.2.3.0.561.6600.13j28j5j5-1.47.0.les%3B..2.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.D1N6ScvgZao&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.b2I&fp=5f5c1b7c79913b10&biw=1366&bih=643 plus if McGinness is retired he may have far more free time than a working Physician such as Dr. Proctor to contribute online. Finally the personality of the Nucleoliphilic is different that Pproctor. Again the foregoing is a hypothesis only.

The John McGinness article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_McGinness no consensus was achieved on Deletion due in part to what one editor shared there I found "to long, not read" perhaps this could be an opportunity to achieve that consensus for both articles.Inhouse expert (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way that AfD works, there needs to be a named discussion for each page considered for deletion. It's possible to open a discussion about multiple pages at once, but that's not what I did. So, you or someone else would have to start the AfD process for any other pages. For now, we are specifically discussing the Peter Proctor page. The checkuser investigation to which I linked in the nomination statement determined that Nucleophilic is Dr. Proctor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself could be speedied as ridiculously and over-the-top promotional, but let's put this one to rest. [2] Searching under Gscholar for "PH Proctor" as the author finds an h-index of 14, which is too low for WP:PROF#C1 in the extremely high citation fields of medical research. I see no other claim to notability under WP:PROF. The references in this article, especially as a ton of them are primary, are a classic case of TLDR, but a gnews search, as well as the work by earlier editors on the page, find nothing to pass WP:BIO's requirement for significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. The closing admin may indeed wish to consider salting the article due to the history with sockpuppetry. Ray^Talk 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history is undeniably bad, but we're only debating notability here. Proctor does appear to have a citation record that satisfies our conventional requirements (from WoS): 181, 105, 70, 64... with some of these being in Science and Nature. Dr. Proctor's career/work in mainstream research seems to have ended quite some time ago and he appears to have been making his living as a clinician (drproctor.com seems to be his clinical practice website). Content can be edited appropriately (art. should probably be stubbed) and the article can be locked down if socking continues to be a problem. Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with you that we are only debating notability here, but. Based on your description of his move from research to clinical practice, are you sure that he was not denied tenure? (And the link you provide is kind of laughable for an academic scientist!) Your argument about WOS goes to WP:PROF Criterion 1, and it's worth looking carefully at the notes to that criterion. You cite only two papers with WOS numbers above 100 (one just barely above), and that's not very much for the subject's field(s) of science. Further, do we know whether these papers were ones on which he was a principal author, or ones where he was merely one of several authors on another principal investigator's work? (I no longer have access to WOS, so I'm not able to check for myself.) In this discussion, we've had one editor cite another editor as saying that the h-index was 49, followed by another editor saying here that the h-index is 14 – so I don't want to take any editor claims about metrics on face value in this discussion. On the article talk page as well as at Talk:Nobel Prize controversies#RfC: Should the 2000 Chemistry section be removed, there has been a lot of discussion about whether any truly independent secondary sources have commented on the subject's works, and there just does not seem to be much if anything showing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed arguing on WP:PROF. Whether he was denied tenure and the fact that he runs some kind of hair clinic nowadays are irrelevant. Most of his papers are from the 1970s and early 80's, hence my speculation that he wasn't actually in the academic world all that long and that h-index is arguably not appropriate here. Judging by citations, he did write several somewhat important papers a long time ago and I think that qualifies him. (Your point about his specific contributions is well-taken, but this is problematic with almost every scientist here and we often give the benefit of the doubt.) Conversely, I think also that the article should probably be stubbed – WP is not the place to go into the minutiae of every single paper someone published. Eds/socks have caused lots of trouble here, but I think it's important to not confuse this with the documented contributions of Proctor, even if the socks are him. Agricola44 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

About "we often give the benefit of the doubt" concerning specific contributions, the question becomes whether we should give that benefit for this particular page; otherwise it becomes a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument for keep. So the question becomes: did he actually write what you call "several somewhat important papers", or was he simply a co-author on those papers that were primarily other people's work? We agree that the h-index is a dubious measure, and I'm also questioning the WOS metrics. I might be persuaded if we could see secondary sources citing findings that are actually associated with Proctor's own work, but, heck, when I was in graduate school, I was a coauthor on widely cited papers by my advisor, but that work would be attributed to him, not me. I'm just not persuaded that WOS metrics, by themselves, establish notability in the absence of any other evidence of notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in this case, Dr. Proctor's advisor was John McGinness. I'd be disinclined to put much weight here on papers coauthored by the two of them, in that high citation rates for such papers would count much more towards notability of Dr. McGinness (whose page, of course, is not up for deletion here) than for notability of Dr. Proctor. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "P H Procter" in GS gives some well-cited papers and an h-index around 16. A good start but, as Ray clearly says, not enough for this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The case for WP:PROF is borderline and given all the COI and sockpuppetry issues I think we're best off without. Given that he seems to have made such a big deal about not winning the Nobel, proper coverage of him should say something about it, but disinterested and reliable sources don't seem to exist. So we're left with an unbalanced article that just avoids talking about the issue, also not a good thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question, to those who were involved with this sock puppet investigation, who exactly out of the members named on that page were shown to have the same IP address or were any and all checked, as that is more definitive than some of the other lines of evidence of course?Inhouse expert (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP addresses are visible only to Checkusers, and they've said all they're going to say on the subject in the linked investigation archive (e.g. the "Confirmed" etc messages). So we won't get a clearer picture than we already have about which kind of evidence was used for this check. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the reason that they will not say more is that our privacy policy makes that kind of information confidential. Even editors who sock are entitled to personal privacy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with others who say does not meet the notability standards and given the COI and socking I agree with David Eppstein we are better off without this article. LGA _talk^edits 00:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agree with David Eppstein and the general principles of User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior (9, 13, 66) that for borderline cases, we need to ask, is this making the encyclopedia better or worse? The sockpuppets + Single purpose account + ridiculous claims to being denied a Nobel, make me conclude the answer is worse, and delete will improve WP. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In borderline cases we can consider whether it makes the encyclopedia better or worse, and I think it makes it better to have the information in the present reasonably neutral article; all it takes is a little further condensation and less use of the subject's name. What we well might want to rid ourselves of is the editor who is making this difficult by trying for the most promotional articles possible. Some people can write about themselves objectively, but we rightly discourage it, and this discussion will show why. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edge Development Option[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability per WP:NSOFTWARE. Checked Google News, Google News Archive, HighBeam, Google Books and NewsBank. - Mr X 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references and external links, hoping that helps. This article actually links from the GoogleEarth article taht talks about this as Google earth precursor (when developed by Autometric), and I found that to be relevant. Both Google Earth and Autometric article predate this one. -Jerappelle —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the references that you added are PRIMARY sources and not sufficient for establishing notability (see Notability, WP:Identifying reliable sources and Citing sources for the guidelines). All of the source are from Boeing, and are mostly press releases. Notability requires that reliable sources, independent of the subject have taken note and written about the subject. What we usually want for sources are newspapers, magazines, books or news web sites. - Mr X 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, The Google Earth Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth refers to Edge Whole Earth already, which is the same software for Edge Development Option. The wikipedia page for Autometric at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autometric also refers to Edge Development Option and links to this page, the Edge Development Option page has simply filled in the information. Before, the Autometric Wikipedia page would simply refers to a blank page named Edge Development Option, with no information available, therefore this page is necessary to fill that void. Jerappelle (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Take Care (album). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Care[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a remixed version of a popular album theres no need for an article. Koala15 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 20. Snotbot t • c » 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Take Care (album)—whatever little info there is can be easily incorporated into the main album article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Take Care (album) as per above. The NYTimes piece provides at least some coverage (albeit still quite brief) for this mixtape, but I'm just not seeing much else to indicate it warrants a standalone article; a mention in the Take Care article should suffice. Gong show 02:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an OFFICIAL remix version of a popular album in which the ARTIST HOSTED the REMIXED version there IS a need for an article. Macbookbro1 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Coverage is light for this versionof the Take Care album. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so can it be merged into a section inside of Take Care? [[Macbookbro1 (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)]][reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pattukkottai Rajappa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Fails WP:BIO. The only reference cited in the article is [3], which is a list of non-notable events organized in the Madurai city. utcursch | talk 22:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability whatsoever. Fails WP:CREATIVE as far as I can see. As usual, this might be a language barrier but I'm just not seeing anything that could merit inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I may have not comprehended the article properly, but it appears that the claim to notability as a critic of Tamil literature. However, he has not published anything according to the article. As noted by the nominator, the sole reliable source availabel is an event listing from the Hindu which reads "Shree Meenakshi Nursery and Primary School: 6th Annual Day celebration, Pattukottai Rajappa presides, S. M. S. Mahal, Dhanappa Mudali Street, 5 p.m." in its entirety. Presiding over a nusrsery school celebration does not seem like the sort of thing that would give rise to the coverage we would expect for inclusion in wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional in tone and lacks needed sources. Ducknish (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False marva[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a hoax (or possibly a phonetic misspelling of something which I can't determine). The article was created by a user who was blocked for vandalism. The only reference to "false marva" I can find on the web that isn't scraped from Wikipedia is this page: (http://poet70.tripod.com/journal12.html) Plantdrew (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks any evidence of existence, let alone notability. No prejudice to later recreation if sources are provided. - htonl (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This name has absolutely no currency whatsoever, nor does there appear to be any other sort of "marva" tree that would inspire there to be a "false marva" tree. Under the working assumption that this was a phonetic (or other) misspelling of the tree's appropriate name, I tried to locate any tree meeting the limited description present, but I was not able to unambiguously associate this with any actual plant (and certainly not any plant with a common name that could plausibly resemble this article's title). This is either a hoax, or a mistitled substub lacking the context necessary to identify its subject. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability with absolutely no indication that this term is used. If this is a plant, then I suspect we already have an article on it, but there is no point in trying to uncover that for a redirect as it would seem that this "name" for any such plant is so seldom used that there is not trace of it anywhere, not even in unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whatever this is, if anything, is surely known by a more common term. a13ean (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms (Sweden), this article is essentially a list of translations from Norwegian to Finnish. Whilst it might be suitable for Norwegian and/or Finnish Wikipedia, it is unnecessary in English Wikipedia. If anyone needs to know the Finnish name for a Norwegian place, then the interwiki links on the place's article would help. Bazonka (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. If the Finnish Wikipedia wants this list, they can have it transwikied over to there -- but they would probably want to edit the list to remove a number of the names on this list which are repeated due to insufficient maintenance of the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Considering that Wikipedia has articles about hardly any of these Norwegian places, it's unclear to me why we would need a list of what they are called in Finnish." is the sort of view why wikipedia has grown so unevenly. That we do not have articles on most of them does not mean they are not notable or warmly appreciated here. I think this is useful for not only identifying the features but for those which have Finnish names.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dr. B. (I mention that he suggested I look at this AfD, but as you will see, I do not agree with him on the two related articles) This is actually a list of articles or potential articles. WP is a work in progress. I would possibly retitle the article as Kven exonyms, because Kven, a dialog of Finnish, is one of the official minority languages of Norway. This is not a random pairing of languages: I would not support a similar list of French exonyms for paces in Norway. Nor is it a random list of Norwegian places--it's those that have such names because they are Kven-speaking areas.

However, I would merge the three articles: I would suggest we expand the content here to includes the villages and significant geographic features in the other two other articles, in each case indicating on the main list the relevant region & the geographical coordinates for each item. That we do not have articles on these places is a weakness, for we do have coverage of every town and village in other countries. As DrB says, this can serve as a checklist for making them. The nom and first commentator make a basic error: this is the English WP, but that means only that it is the WP written in English. The enWP covers the entire world, to the extent we have people to write the articles. Any differences we have in coverage is a function of what people here are prepared to work on. Although it is understandable and expected that we will always have stronger coverage of England and other English speaking countries than Norway, our need is to increase the coverage of Norway to the extent we can. I do not consider it one of our greatest needs, but our priorities are inevitably set by what people here want to do. Whatever part of the appropriate content they want to work on, they should be supported

The corresponding article for Finnish names in Sweden was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms (Sweden). This was a mistake, due to inadequate attention. After we keep this, I'll ask for a relisting DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do agree on all, the geographical tabled lists are notable in their own right and productive but the focus on Finnish exonyms rather than on list of landmarks is perhaps less notable. This is different as its a list of Norwegian place names with Finnish names which in my opinion is useful, as was the Swedish one which shouldn't have been deleted. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your logic DGG, that if Kven is an official language of Norway, we should keep this, but do you have any reliable sources backing up that Kven is one of the official languages in Norway? Last time I checked, we had three official written languages (Bokmål, Nynorsk and Sami) If Kven is not an official language of Norway, should we have articles for every minority language in Norway? Mentoz86 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kven is (officially) a minority language in Norway and seems to be the only minority language apart from two non-territorial minority languages, Romani and Romanes.[4] Also, same reference, "there is no agreement among the Kvens as to whether this language should be referred to as "Kven" or "Finnish". The Norwegian government's policies are not supposed to discriminate against people speaking Kven. Not sure how this helps! Thincat (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. No need for this on English WP as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are the names some indigenous Norwegians use for places in their own country. I expect our woeful notability guidelines do not cover this matter but the topic seems entirely encyclopedic to me. List of Scottish Gaelic place names exists and is very appropriate in my view. Is it legitimate to change red links into interwiki links to nowp? I did this with a single link several years ago and got reverted. DGG's merge proposal[5] is of course wise. Thincat (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The difference between List of Scottish Gaelic place names and this article is that Scotland is a largely English-speaking country, whereas Norway isn't. Since this is English Wikipedia, essentially the Scottish article is "foreign names for places in your language" and this article is "foreign names for places in another foreign language". Yes, I know Norwegians (the primary audience for this article, I guess) read English Wikipedia too, but they can also use Norwegian Wikipedia which seems a more appropriate location to me. Bazonka (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is not a language spoken in England only, it is a language you speak all over the world. Given that Scandinavians are "best in the world" at English, there are a lot of those who uses the English Wikipedia instead of their local version, so I don't agree with your reasoning. We are also not to decide whether this article/list is suitable for the Norwegian version of Wikipedia, only if it should stay in English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoz86 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 February 2013‎

Keep-The article is useful and lists the indigenous names of some places. I agree with Thincat.--Goldenaster (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exonym articles is generally encyclopedic and notable, no indication why this one isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm confident that this is notable per DGG and Dr. B. Even though I was one of those who got Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms (Sweden) deleted, I'd support a DRV or a relist after the arguments that has showed in this AfD. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global urbanism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This article can only depend on one source. I dream of horses (T) @ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In contesting the prod, the creator wrote, "It is the name of a new concept aligned with the new mainstream thinking." Except that the article provides no evidence that this concept, by itself, has become mainstream, or that it even has been the subject of any literature beyond the author who first described it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb, you understand the phrase in its opposite sense. It say “aligned with the new mainstream thinking." no that this concept, “by itself has become mainstream”. That is impossible because it is new. What I am saying is that it exists and it is linked culturally with an important current of thinking (scientific, ext.) . so it has interest in itself. (Opposite case would be if it has not cultural link) Not only the mainstream thinking has the rights to be published. I guess that should be in hands of the people in general and of the wikipedia readers in particular to opt if it becomes mainstream or not. Let them chose by themselves.--Tamisferr (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't understand why this article has been nominated for deletion. I understand that this concept is "aligned with the new mainstream thinking" but that's not by itself an inclusion for criterion in Wikipedia. The real criterion is that the concept has to become mainstream itself (or at least has been the subject of extensive coverage), the very thing you claim is impossible. Right now, if I understand correctly what you're saying is your argument to keep the article, that's actually an argument to say that since this concept is new and therefore not well-known, you have to wait for it to be better-known before a Wikipedia article can be started. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an article about a recent self-published non-peer reviewed essay, with no proof of any impact on public discourse. None of the references in the article, which all predate the essay, prove notability. Much of the article itself is non-encyclopaedic self-reflection misusing references. --ELEKHH^T 01:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account (Ambal-ulsk) with no other edits other than related to X-Cart. Was speedied twice as spam under this spam article, however, it was also speedied a ton of times under a multitude of others such as, Xcart, XCart, X-cart and X-Cart shopping cart. Article is one part of a massive Marketing campaign by Qualiteam Software Ltd. Has links but paid press kit reviews and trivial coverage or mentions fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacks "significant coverage" in independent and reliable secondary sources. Equally, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" Hu12 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cart is the 1st PHP based shopping cart software in the world. If you check dates you'll see it was created before oscommerce. Almost every web developer worked or working with X-Cart. Just google for "x-cart" or "xcart" you'll see number of mentions. I see "About 4,590,000 results" right now.We had more content with more proof-links, but someone deleted the most of the content. Also, why do you keep other similar articles? See links to them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_shopping_cart_software - the most of articles should be deleted according to the aforementioned rules. We are not mentioning our features and other marketing bla-bla-bla like others do. And the most of them are not having number of mentions in the Internet as X-Cart has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambal-ulsk (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC) --Ambal-ulsk (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)— Ambal-ulsk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"We had..."
"We are not mentioning our features..."

Please See public relations, and marketing and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. :The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; Pointing out that your competitors exist does not prove that X-Cart should also exist. Your contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote X-Cart which is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates). Additionaly reporting competitors negatively in an attempt to get them deleted is never a sign of good faith. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your products. --Hu12 (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 28. Snotbot t • c » 01:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The article is tainted by the spam, of course, but on the merits I can't find enough sources to justify the article. That said, there may be sources in Russian that I am not equipped to evaluate, and the Paypal announcement (had it received media coverage rather than press releases) would be notable indeed, I believe. But I don't think we're there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem notable.^King Jakob _C2 00:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? X-Cart based merchants process 1 billion USD in sales annually, but I fear I can't put a proof-link for that here. Number of X-Cart user forum members is more than 30,000 at the moment and growing - see the proof in the bottom at http://forum.x-cart.com/ Also, X-Cart is the Platinum partner of PayPal - see https://www.paypal-marketing.com/paypal/html/hosted/emarketing/partner/directory/#s=all,s00&k=x-cart&n=34161289&m=p , PayPal doesn't give their highest partnership level to "not notable" solutions. One more example - a hosting provider based in Atlanta, GA, USA, one of hosting providers who provide X-Cart within their plans. I quoting their site: "With over 2300 hosted X-Cart sites powered by EWD Hosting, you’re in great company" ^[1] - this is just one of hosting companies who provide X-Cart Hosting.Ambal-ulsk (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 SmartSE (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iconnect[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about an apparently non-notable company. Unable to find reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, with the exception of several press releases and advertorials. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. - Mr X 21:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Spam, per WP:CSD#G11 Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm closing early under the snowball clause. Arguably, you could say this content should be redirected to the article, which was speedy deleted, so speedy delete this article (G8/A7), but I think it's reasonable to say that this would not come through a full AfD with any outcome other than delete. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Alexander Brown[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character from a Youtube web show (Church) whose article was speedily deleted as non-notable web content. PROD on this article removed by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable by far and I haven't found a single piece of notable evidence aside from a blog for a real religious person also named Alexander Brown. Sometimes fictional characters won't have good and reliable sources but because this show is not notable, there's nothing to make the character itself notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can't have a notable character from a non-notable piece of fiction; when the character gets substantial coverage, there is (by definition) substantial coverage of the piece of fiction. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character doesn't seem to be notable (no coverage online), and there's no place to merge it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 UFL season[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:TOOSOON; the league disbanded half way through the 2012 season, and since a 2013 season hasn't been announced, this article is purely speculative Go Phightins! 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. No context whatsoever and no sign of the 2012 season being completed. GAtechnical (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable per WP:V, no reliable sources per WP:RS, and appears to be a one-sentence prediction regarding a future football season that may or may not be played per WP:CRYSTAL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Kante4 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there a "MaybeWiki" someplace?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there apparently won't be a season. These minor football leagues don't last long, do they? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - League suspended operations midway through last year, and though I would like to see a 2013 season, this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Zappa O Mati 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Bargès[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This academic is not even close to satisfying any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), let alone more general notability criteria. A search on Web of Science turned up just 3 publications with a total of 2 citations! RockMagnetist (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete agreed as above. Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CV stub having no claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete academic positions seem non-notable. Ducknish (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the off chance that the problem is merely that our article is badly written, and that she has some notability not evident in what is written here, I went looking on Google scholar for citations to her work. The numbers are higher than the WoS numbers reported above (as is typical for GS) but they're still in the single digits, well below WP:PROF#C1. And there's no evidence of any other kind of notability, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vonbluvens Show[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about podcast with little to indicate any notability beyond a few notable guests Jac16888 ^Talk 19:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This stub has remained dormant since 2005 but now a user by the name of "Hal Turner Fan" moved it making the argument that the new update is about a podcast now and "not the individual". There is no citation or reference. It should be deleted or restored back to the old re-direct.METOKNOWONLY (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete with salt - I should note that the article has been nominated before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonbluvens. It seems this article has been existing for quite some time (as far as August 2005) and an edit war even started at the end of 2005 especially September. It seems the last edit was a redirect and merge to National Socialist Movement (United States) though it doesn't seem this podcast or person is mentioned there. Unfortunately, I haven't found any substantial and reliable sources, only blogs (even recent ones) and such which appeared to have been what caused the edit war. Google News wasn't being useful either until I performed another search and found two news articles here and here (same newspaper and year). Multiple searches at Google Books didn't provide anything. Looking at some of the references given in 2005, I was able to recover one of the interviews but it doesn't seem to be much use for this article. Although the little news coverage makes me doubt it could be notable to mention at the NSM article, I'm open to redirecting if others agree. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where could it be re-directed to? I actually think it would be better to delete. METOKNOWONLY (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually suggested redirecting but rather because it was redirected before to NSM, if it could be redirected again. Regardless, this podcast is not notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with saltMETOKNOWONLY (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Of no small note--I just discovered a major editor/contributor of original article by the user name of "Willmcw" was indefinitely banned by the Arbitration Committee. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Willmcw METOKNOWONLY (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable and defunct neo-Nazi podcast, odious even by the descriptions in the unreliable sources I can find. If it had received significant coverage in reliable sources, I would support keeping it. But it was pretty much ignored, even by the far right blogosphere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Guixiu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article asserts that she was part of the Chinese women's gymnastics team at the 1984 Olympics and that, as part of that team, she won a bronze medal. However, I can find no source substantiating that claim, and the page on the 1984 Chinese gymnastics team at sports-reference.com appears to contradict that claim, as she was mentioned nowhere. I am now believing that the claim is false. There's no other independent notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The team membership is true (see Guangxi Economic YearBook 1985 edition, page 402[6]. Her name is also cited in the book called Chinese Medalists in the 1984 Olympic Games [7] in Google scholar. The China YearBook 1985[8] by Japan's Chinese research institute lists 7 bronze medalists, including Ming. But a lot of other content seems to be false. The Guangxi Economic YearBook says she's born in 1967, not 1974. --Skyfiler (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stub. Skyfiler's shown proof that she exists and got the medal, but it's probably not safe to keep any of the content otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I appreciate Skyfiler's citations, but I am not sure that we can/should trust any of them. The Guangxi Economic Yearbook appears, from the page that Skyfiler linked to and otherwise, to be one of those "Who's Who" books that uses self-provided information to determine what to put in it. Of the two citations in Google Scholar, one was a pre-Olympics article that talked about the team's expectations — in other words, that she was prior to the Olympics, on the team, not that she was actually on the team that went to the Olympics. The latter source, just based on title, didn't seem like a reliable source to me, as it appeared to be a propaganda piece. (I admit that it's subjective.) Particularly, since we (or at least I — I am hoping that someone can actually take a look at the source itself; it appears that the University of Michigan has it in their digital collection, but I can't find a way for non-UM-affiliated persons to see it), for all we know, it could be referring her as, "Ming Guixiu was initially supposed to compete, but the coaches decided not to take her to Los Angeles," for example. --Nlu (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I note Skyfiler's additional citation to the China YearBook, and the text there appears more credible. I don't think I have anything else to add. I still find the information a bit questionable, but certainly Skyfiler has brought my own belief into doubt. I'll submit. --Nlu (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the standard sources for that contest,[9], [10] the Chinese team did win the Bronze; the team for this event consists of six athletes,(Ma Yanhong, Wu Jiani, Chen Yonyang, Zhou Ping, Zhou Qiurui, & Huang Qun) but her name is not one of them. On the Official report, her name appears in the list of athletes, [11], p.215, but not in those who competed [12] p.436 & following I presume the Chinese sources have copied from one another. That someone not on the official results won a prize is an extraordinary claim that would need extraordinarily sound evidence. I suppose that she was on the team, but did not actually compete on the field. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Secret ^account 07:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examphobia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline incoherent ramblings, no encyclopedic content. Creater gets marks for originality, though, for including other WP articles he created on completely unrelated topics as external links :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Borderline coherent garbage, likely written by/for a student as an excuse to get out of an exam. Could this possibly be speedied as G2 or G3? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is common and well recognised. We already have a similar article — test anxiety — and so further development is what's needed per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that comments below this point were made after the article was re-written into a completely different state to the one I nominated -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to test anxiety. Content fork. (C'mon, Colonel, this is an easy one...) Carrite (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect per Carrite. Subject-wise, I don't see a clear distinction from test anxiety. Google-books content search on the cited ref does not give any hits (and even simple searches like "exam" don't find an entry for this topic). DMacks (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Test anxiety. There's really no difference. Ducknish (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag team John Cena and Randy Orton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline incoherent account of what seems to be one random match from WWE. No evdience of notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as garbage that is only borderline coherent. Wikipedia is not your personal diary for your opinions on WWE events. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It made me smile, but it really has to go. Just a poorly written blog-style post with no evidence of notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It made my head hurt trying to read this. Nonsense page. STATic message me! 20:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability one bit. Ducknish (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable as a tag team. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested PROD. The kid hasn't been born yet and for all we know Catherine could lose the baby. Wikipedia is not the news or a crystal ball. All information should be referenced in William and Catherine's articles for now. And this page deleted and no redirects, especially as the pair are very likely to have more children GAtechnical (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. There will be a great deal of speculation about the sex, name, colour of the nursery, and so forth. It will occupy a great deal of print and virtual space. But it is not what WP is for. It is also the Duchess of Cambridge's child, and it does not yet have an identity independent of the mother. --AJHingston (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I remember coming across this PROD and thinking the same thing. The big thing about this is that there is nothing about this child that can't be currently covered in the article for the Duchess of Cambridge. There's nothing we can really say about him or her that isn't directly related to the DoC, as the child isn't born. Other than that, all we can say is that the child exists as a fetus. It's not really even a "child" yet in the most technical sense of the term, although that's a whole different discussion. The bottom line is that this is just too soon and will probably be "too soon" for at least a good few years after his/her birth. Notability is not inherited by having famous and royal parents, after all. I also think that this wouldn't serve as a good redirect as we all hope that the two are blessed with as many babies as can fill Buckingham Palace. The singular term is one that would swiftly become inaccurate as soon as she has a second successful birth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straight up Delete per AJHingston, as clear a violation of WP:CRYSTAL as they come. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 19:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. At least wait for the fetus to be born/named. Safiel (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature -- When the baby is born and named, it will be 3th in line to the UK throne, and notable as such, but there will be little to be said about it until it is much older. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Pregnancy. No *need* to delete, but certainly not worthy of an article, yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read the title. It says child. They are likely to have more children. Secondly it's about William not Catherine so again just plain wrong for a redirect. GAtechnical (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Completely useless as a redirect. Safiel (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not in a hurry to create subjects that do not exist yet. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We will not lose any information if we wait until this person is born to create an article about them. The title would not be particularly useful as a redirect, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Doctora Jr.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. It should be noted that the article's creator has since replaced this page with a redirect to Ruben Doctora, which has been PRODed for the same reasons. ~~I'd expect that PROD to be contested so it may be necessary to bundle that page with this AfD.~~ ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, it's been speedied. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 09:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, the UFL isn't a fully-professional league yet (it's only semi-professional, although its fanbase is growing), and as such, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opti-Time Company[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

can only find press release coverage, nothing which meets WP:CORP depth of coverage, therefore have to conclude not notable _nonsense ferret 13:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another business that produces software for field service management, including real-time service call scheduling, vehicle route optimization, and geomarketing advertising on Wikipedia. Google News isn't even finding the press releases announcing the buyout mentioned in the article; losing 'Company' finds press releases and routine business page announcements in French. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Press releases are insufficient and articles solely focused on their merger. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Kocher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

University chaplain. Not notable under any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and doesn't have sources under WP:GNG for standalone notability. GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search brings up various primary sources, including an all-inclusive directory listing, but he does not appear to have received significant coverage in any reliable secondary sources as required by WP:N. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed...not notable. WildCowboy (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think WP:PROF applies in this case - while it's possible for chaplains to be scholars, that doesn't seem to be the case here. Hence, we revert to WP:BIO, and aside from news reporting confirming that he is chaplain and was associate chaplain at various places, there isn't really any in-depth coverage of the subject. Ray^Talk 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Richmond Office of the Chaplaincy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weird mishmash of a history of University of Richmond's chaplain and an overview of its offices. Per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, there is nothing that makes this in any way unique among the thousands of university chaplains. Per WP:GNG, there are no third party sources to establish the notability of this office. GrapedApe (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom nothing notable about a Uni chaplaincy. GAtechnical (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I expressed on the creator's talk page discussion when the article first appeared, there is no assertion of notability here. WildCowboy (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how this might be notable. RadioFan (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, unmaintainable and unverifiable list. There is no clear definition for the term papabile, which means that there are no inclusion or exclusion criteria for this listing. Whether a name is included or not just depends on the subjective opinion of some news outlet and (even worse, as it is a breach of WP:OR) the perception of the respective editor. FoxyOrange (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but rumors about who might have been elected pope. In reality, no one other than the cardinals themselves know who was actually a legitimate candidate, making this problematic for WP:V. Had some of this been referenced, I would say that some material could be merged into Papal conclave, 2005 as "people rumored in the media to have been papabili" but there's nothing worth keeping.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per grapedape only the cardinals know. It's not like there's a shortlist announced. In anycase I can't remember the UK media throwing too many names around.GAtechnical (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I can. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sourced. If properly sourced, this would not be much different than an article like Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates - a list of persons considered by people with some knowledge of the matter to be likely candidates to an important office. Certainly this would be of enduring interest to some. bd2412 T 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if properly sourced --JB82 (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't keep poorly sourced "speculation" lists here on Wikipedia, this is a perfect violation of WP:NOTNEWS Secret ^account 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speculative. What's the point of maintaining this list after the event? -- Y not? 20:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or probable merge to Papal conclave, 2005. Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unsourced, and a bad idea in any case as it was entirely speculative. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is completely unsourced speculation -- basically crystal-ballery applied to the past. Papal conclave, 2005#Course of balloting mentions a few candidates who supposedly received votes at this conclave, citing published sources although there is no way to know how accurate those published sources' informants were. But that's about as much speculation as I'm willing to accept. Also, for some reason, the list has continued to be updated with cardinals who have died or turned 80 years old in the years following the 2005 conclave having their names displayed against a gray background -- although that would have been irrelevant in 2005. (If that were kept up, by 2025 every single cardinal on the list would have his name with a gray background.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Stephens[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable self published author lacking GHITS and GHITS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is established by books about a subject, not books by the subject. --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails every aspect of WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Mauldin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of chart placing or national news coverage, beyond basic discography mentions in Billboard and MTV. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate significant coverage for this musician; the best I found was the Austin Chronicle piece, which briefly discusses one of her albums. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 18:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few local sources, but I don't think there's enough to be notable enough for an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Toddst1 per WP:CSD#G4. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Levin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO. The majority of the sources are primary sources, so no use for establishing notability. None of the secondary sources provide significant coverage. Some like this at first appear independent, but are actually press releases. Searches for sources in google news and google books don't find anything which is suitable either. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AirNav Systems RadarBox[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is an advertisement. This has not been remedied since the original advertisement was flagged in January 2012. Noelmg (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 12:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found:

In depth review by Monitoring Times magazine Reliable, takes pride in being independent of the manufacturers
review at AVSIM Online
Review at FlightSim.com
review at Install or Not Journalistc; might be a blog

The first reference is reliable and the next two look like independent reviews to me. If so, then there are multiple reliable sources and the topic would seem to pass notability guidelines. I agree that the article looks quite promotional and needs work to become encyclopedic. But this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, and AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTFORCLEANUP. Notability and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-sources are there. The subject is notable.--Soroboro (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many similar amateur/semi-professional ADS-B receivers none really notable but could be included in a article covering all of these boxes. MilborneOne (talk)

No. Here at Wikipedia we have both articles covering notable technologies and articles covering specific notable products, but we do not have articles that review or compare a range of similar products. That would be original research synthesis. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion was not a comparison article just a description of this and the similar SBS-1 and many other similar amateur receivers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're suggesting, but the fact is that notable products DO deserve their own article regardless, and non-notable products DO NOT deserve a mention, even in a collective article. This particular product is clearly notable as a result of the substantial coverage it has received in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Monitoring Times review is definitely a independent reliable secondary source. Both the AVSIM Online and the FlightSim.com seem to be independent, selective in the items they review and written by staff rather than contributors, so I would suggest that they also qualify as reliable secondary sources. However the Install Or Not review DOES NOT, because of this:

"but being Install or Not we review all products which need to be reviewed in order to help you guys decide whether the product is for you or not !"

(emphasis added by me)

The article clearly needs work as it's worded like an advertisement, but the subject matter is clearly notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding this. I agree, "Install or not" is not a reliable source. --Mark viking (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added these references to the article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AEGEE-Iasi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's positively no evidence presented of independent coverage on this entity. We have blogs, Facebook, a website, the usual self-published stuff, plus a description on the site of the university it's associated with, which of course hardly counts as independent. When all is said and done, this is a 30-member student organisation. And, unsurprisingly, the article was created by single-purpose account Razvan.pascal, the group's president for most of 2012. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 17:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the references are to self-published and internal information. No showing of enduring significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real outside coverage. Ducknish (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Market trend. Carrite admitted that market correction might not be a great search term. The consensus is very clear to me for Market trend. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market corrections[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not been given a notable update for a few years, it's seriously out of date and I don't have a clue what it's supposed to be about, plus considering that it is without sources I think it's good to be deleted but I wanted to score some consensus. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Isn't this just a polite term for Stock market crash? There's several relevant articles this could be redirected to (e.g. Stock market crash, Financial crisis of 2007–2008, Stock market bubble, Irrational exuberance). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Market trend, where corrections are already discussed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to somewhere. It's certainly a plausible search term, but we're rather spoilt for choice on where it should go to. Market correction might be another place to send people. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to market correction. As a side note, the piece market correction is unconscionably terrible for such an important search term, I'm off to Articles for Improvement... Carrite (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Carrite. Absolutely not worth keeping, but it's definitely a plausible reirect. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least Market trend is referenced, and discusses corrections. Market correction is a stub discussing commodities rather than equities and thusfar is devoid of references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market trend. Stock market corrections and crashes are different things; a correction is a modest short term reversal of a market trend, whereas a crash is the trend. Also one can have upward corrections, too, but crashes are always down. There are many news articles on stock market corrections. Google scholar shows 597 hits for "stock market correction" and 178 hits for "stock market corrections". The concept seems highly notable. We should have an article on this. But pragmatically, I am going to ignore all rules here--this article is in a useless, embryonic state and users would be better served by a redirect to a good exposition in the Market trend article. Definitely no prejudice to re-creation by an editor wanting to create a sound article on this topic. --Mark viking (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Market trend. Kabirat (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The After/Life[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self published book that has not reached any national best seller list. No references to be found about the book, just bookseller sites. Fails WP:BKCRIT. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first Armenian writer written and published post-apocalyptic/sci-fi novel, has reached bestseller status in Armenia and has since expanded to reach out to other potential customers abroad. So when it is mentioned that no national best seller list includes The After/Life novel, which nation are we talking about? Does the inclusion of a novel info on wikipedia only justified when the title can be found on US (if this was the case stated) best seller lists? What about other countries? Deletion suggestion removed based on the above stated arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardan Partamyan (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 March 2013‎ (This user has no edits outside of the AfD's subject.)

Remove: To be honest I think the PROD removal was more of the work of a vandal than somebody whom was protesting it, nevertheless no sources and no reason to the removal of the PROD, I say we send it down the river. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing out there that would show that this book is notable or that the claims of it being a bestseller in Armenia is true. Even if this was a bestseller, selling well does not give notability. We have dozens upon hundreds of books that have achieved the holiest of holies, the New York Times Bestseller status, yet do not pass notability guidelines. Some of them are in the top ten of their various lists or the main list, yet do not pass notability guidelines per WP:NBOOK. My point in detailing this is that being bestselling in any country does not give notability and that we're not prejudicing against this book because it's not as American as apple pie. Selling a lot of books just makes it more likely that it'll gain coverage. Part of the reason that bestseller status doesn't give notability is because the term is rather loosely thrown around. Someone sells 100 copies on Amazon and gets in the top 100 for their genre? Bestselling, never mind that they achieved it by giving the book out for free. There's also a big concern on whether or not the NYTB list is really all that prestigious, as several people have found evidence that the system is gamed by the bigger publishers, meaning that the "bestseller" status isn't really that accurate of a term. I couldn't find where the book had received any actual coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. You stated yourself that the NYT bestseller list was not something to be considered a focal point. Equally so, the notability does not come from the number of copies sold but instead from the simple fact that THIS IS THE FIRST SCIENCE FICTION POST-APOCALYPTIC novel by an Armenian author. The reason you failed to find reference to the novel in the Armenian sites is the simple fact that you do not know Armenian language and thus your search results return no variants in the according category. So please remove the deletion claim from the article, allowing it to represent the first foray of an Armenian into the genre of post. apoc. sci-fi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardan Partamyan (talk • contribs)
Suggested conclusion The review process should be more integral with the core guidelines of wiki articles for there is significant prejudice and subjectivity in the arguments brought above. I therefore contest the deletion claim and suggest taking this case into account when dealing with similar self-published but novel ideas such as The After/Life novel. It is also worth noting that self-publishing is the core anti-establishment movement that has made the books more available and less expensive. It is a global trend and I do not see the argument of publisher support as a viable notion. After all, wiki itself was born as a power to the people information sharing resource not some corporate outlet or an encyclopedia publisher's ad extension. All the people who posted should keep that in mind. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.75.174 (talk)

Delete as WP:SPAM. Given the username of the editor who created the article, and the name of teh author, I guess that the fact that the description of teh book is a copy of the product description shouldn't be surprising. Wikipedia is not a place to promoet your e-book (or anythign else for that matter). More importantly, I don't see that any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books) is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objection you not seeing any notability criteria met is not a criteria or a proof itself but a subjective view that cannot serve as a viable basis for deletion. The notability of the book has been established in the above state argument on the novel being the first of its kind and no further argumentation is necessary in this regard. Should the article be deleted, it will bring forth a lot of questions about the wikipedia bias towards works that were not written by authors from US, UK and several other major players in the contemporary literary field. That bias being established, it will hurt the interests of wikipedia in all the rest of the markets that aspire and make use of and make contributions to wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.68.97 (talk)
- Reply - The term "notability" as used in Wikipedia has a specific meaning. It refers to our inclusion guidelines: general guideline, guidelines for books are the specific ones that are applicable in this case. Please show how these guidelines are met. -- Whpq (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation I do not believe that the article deletion and moderation should be carried out by people who do not know how to spell the word THE as well as PROMOTE...I mean writing teh instead of the and promoet instead of promote just shows the proficiency of the editor or rather complete and utter lack thereof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.68.97 (talk)
Reply The term notability has one general meaning in any case and as wikipedia uses the English language the meaning of the word cannot be different here than anywhere else. You cannot have the word horse meaning an elephant in wikipedia as it is an online encyclopedia resource not making new content but basing the data on the existing sources. Therefore, the stated notability factor of "first of its kind" (see above) should suffice the notability criteria and close this discussion so that we can all get on with our job. I want to thank everyone for their contribution to the discussion and look forward to future debates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.77.194 (talk)
- Reply - You are free to disregard the link to the guidelines, but that will not result in this article being kept. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Nor should it result in this article being deleted. To prove the deletion case, you should prove that the notability standards are not met and the first-of-a-kind is not a notability category. Please refer to the guidelines and the existing controversies before further comments. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.74.70 (talk)
Comment I'm replying to some of the IP statements here:

As far as claims of "first" go, you have to prove that this is the first Armenian sci-fi apocalypse book ever written and that this is notable. Odds are high that this book was not the first such book in its category and even if it was, which is unlikely, being the first at something does not automatically mean notability. Things of this nature are proven by reliable sources, which did not exist. And before anyone asks, yes you have to have proof. You cannot have an article pass AfD without showing that the claims are backed up in some form of reliable coverage. People can claim whatever they like, but that doesn't mean that it's true or that the claims are notable. I could claim that the book cures cancer and Michael Bay wants to make ten movies based off of it, but without proof those claims are ultimately meaningless as far as establishing notability goes. No amount of protest will change this, no matter how many times someone comes on to complain. I'll say flat out that requiring reliable sources to back up claims has been a policy here for years and it's unlikely to change at all ever, let alone during the period of this AfD.
While the lack of English language reliable sources does not mean that the book might not have Armenian sources, it is usually a strong indication at a general lack of notability. If the book was as bestselling and groundbreaking as the IPs are claiming, there would be some mention of this somewhere in a RS. A search for this when this first came up for PROD, when it was brought to AfD on the 6th, and again today on the 11th brought up very little coverage in any source other than merchant links, false positives, and junk hits that come up with whatever you happened to type into the search engine. (In other words, typing in "owqeroy" will bring up hits for sites that only mirror your text.) It's very unlikely that a novel that makes as many claims as this does would go almost completely unnoticed by the English language world as a whole. At some point books of this nature get some level of coverage. The only person that seems to really be discussing this book is the author himself for the most part. There is very little other coverage.
Being a self-published book is not an indication of notability and Wikipedia is under no obligation to host articles about books that do not meet our specific notability guidelines for books at WP:NBOOK. Notability is not inherited by the book being self-published, in other words. The current trend of self-publishing is notable, but that doesn't mean that notability is extended to every book ever published through this venue. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I understand that it's hard for indie and self-published books to gain coverage, but that doesn't exclude them from the same rules that every book must have. The self-published status makes it unlikely that such books would gain this coverage, but it's not impossible. The bottom line is that we cannot and will not keep articles because it's "interesting" or because it'd be "useful".(WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, or anything at WP:ATA)
Saying that a person's vote is invalid because of a typo is not a good argument to make. If anything, making comments like that are more likely to make incoming editors less likely to be sympathetic for you and for the article. Typos happen and many times we have people who are very smart and have good things to say, but make typos or errors in spelling/grammar for whatever reason. Sometimes it's because English is not their first language. Other times it's because of something like dyslexia, aphasia, or because they have physical conditions that make it harder to type on a keyboard in general. Unless the person is saying something that is completely not based off of policies, it's considered rather poor form to criticize an entire argument based on a few misspellings, whether it's because of a physical or mental handicap, a language barrier, or just a random error. It's a very, very cheap shot and never one that works in AfD unless the person isn't making sense, which Whpq was. I could understand her arguments clearly despite the misspellings.
On a side note, I have to ask you (the IP user) are User:‎Vardan Partamyan. There's nothing wrong with logging in under an IP address, but if you are the same person then you need to make this very clear. Coming in under different names or IPs and making arguments for keep or delete give off the appearance of vote stacking or sock puppeting. AfDs aren't decided on votes, but rather the strength of the arguments and how they apply to established notability policies. This is especially important if we believe that you are personally involved with the book, such as being the author or someone that knows him. Nothing ruins a person's credibility more than suspecting that they're logging in under different formats to try to game the system. In almost all of these cases the person or people are caught. Please don't take that as an insult, just a warning that if you are the same person then you might want to post under your log-in name to avoid confusion or suspicion.

I hope this clears some of the things up. All notability inevitably boils down to "prove it via reliable sources". We cannot keep an article based upon someone claiming something on an AfD when they are unable to prove it in some form or fashion. If you want to bring in Armenian language sources that could help prove the claims, please do so. But until those sources are given, we have no choice but to assume that this book is not notable and no amount of insults or claims will change that.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79 and Whpq -- and isn't the product description on Amazon under copyright? --Stfg (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The comments made by Tokiogirl79 user are invalid for the following reasons:

1. The user shows clear bias towards the article. The creator of the article pursues no commercial goals by publishing information on the novel on wikipedia. The aim of the article is to inform the people who are interested in the genre that there is a novel on the topic by an Armenian writer that is first of its kind. It is not the author's responsibility to prove the first of a kind notion, it is up to the objecting side to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is not the first novel of its kind written by an Armenian author. If one example of a similar novel is brought to the author's attention, he will voluntarily and immediately delete the entry from the wikipedia archive. Moreover, the bias is restated by the fact that the user Tokiogirl79 uses the words "false positive" reviews about the book - thereby putting into doubt and insulting the individuals who have independently reviewed the novel and given their positive feedback on it. There are more statements of that kind, including the justification of a spelling challenged person who reviews literary work and judges its notability but that is beside the point as nothing more could be expected from a biased editor. I will thereby no longer reply to Tokiogirl79 biased comments and will pursue the case indefinitely as long as the case of non-notability of the work is proven beyond doubt, which not only has not been done but all the comments made so far have been superficial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.167.47 (talk)

Anyone else think we've got a Meatpuppet / SockPuppet with 87.241.167.47? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More likely one person using a dynamic IP. All five IP addresses used so far on this page geolocate to Yerevan, Armenia. Four of them are dynamic IPs belonging to the ISP K-Telecom CJSC. The fifth is a static IP belonging to ArmenTel CJSC. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid Khan's Untitled Next[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear failure of WP:NFF (and, by corollary, WP:CRYSTAL). We can't have an article about a movie that doesn't even have a name yet. At a minimum, principle filming must have begun, and then we would only keep it if the production itself were notable. Otherwise, we wait. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Torreslfchero (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just too soon for this to have an article. There isn't even enough info to warrant incubating this.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy per being TOO SOON. Allow recreation WHEN title is announced and IF it has the requisite coverage under WP:GNG and WP:NF. As this article IS sourced and IS speaking about an upcoming Sajid Khan project, it would be sensible per policy that it be spoken of in the director's article until meriting a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will provide deleted content upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Races of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been on Wikipedia since its last AFD in 2006 with no substantive improvement, and it shows . It is a relic of a bygone era, when reliable sourcing and separation of fact and fiction were still new concepts among those in the video game and comic book editors. Time for it to go away. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate to Wikia & delete per Wikipedia is not a game guide - indiscriminate content not supported by sufficient independent reliable commentary. The hours put into this would probably highly benefit the elderscrolls.wikia.com wikia, but for WP, this isn't what we need. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%, I made many article just like this when I started on Wikipedia, and I had to migrate them to wikia, I even made a new wikia to house my favorite book series! But this isn't the place. If you are familiar, could you migrate it over? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate and delete, per MLauba. Game guide, indiscriminate, etc. but worth preserving elsewhere. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 07:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ 500Benz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An electronic music producer. Refs given either don't mention him or are social media, thus unreliable. The only exception is ref from his local hometown independent weekly. All music has been self-released. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Prod was contested with: "If they don't mention DJ its because his name is Ben Leinen dumbass" Bgwhite (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist appears to be active in music circles, but he does not meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. Since much of the article relies on the various associations the subject has with other (more famous) people, it's also worth noting that notability is not inherited. — sparklism ^hey! 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepReferences appear to be better than just social media. Articles specify his name (whether real or dj alias.) All the above arguements could be said about Hudson Mohawke, whose only notabilty is being signed to Kanye.

Comment Hudson Mohawke meets our notability guidelines because not only has his work been released by important record labels, but he has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. It appears that the same cannot be said of DJ 500Benz. And in any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — sparklism ^hey! 10:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple detailed searches including Google News provided nothing substantial and absolutely nothing for Superrapperswil so this one album may be a hoax, obscure or unreleased. A Google News search with the social network he and his brother created, provided two local news articles (nearly three years ago, mainly local and no evidence it has become more popular or notable now). Regardless, there isn't much for a notable article at this time. Although unsigned artists can become notable, there isn't any evidence of that here. As always, I have no prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Serious People[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing fails to meet the very clear criteria specified in WP:NEOLOGISM. There are no in-depth treatments in reliable independent secondary sources. It is not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - political name calling and garbage. Disgusting use of Wikipedia mainspace. Misuse of references and sources. BLP violations and more. Disheartening to even see such crap.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible redirect to Paul Krugman - Almost completely dependent on blog sourcing referencing the term and even then limted to a very few individuals. Appears to be little more than an inside joke for a few. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is about deleting the entire article; I'd appreciate it if you and others didn't try to whipsaw off every arguable source during this discussion. The Frederick Guy source (while self published) is of such a completely different character than any of the other blogs, it bears discussing on its own. Allow us to present sources without reflexively removing them before discussion, please. BusterD (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CD and Buster, please explain to me how a unpublished working paper, which makes no mention of the phrase, along with a personal blog is usable in any situation. You seem to trying to use the unpublished working paper to provide evidence that Guy's blog can be used. If you would present a possible arguable source then I wouldn't have a problem, but what you are adding is complete rubbish. You seem to think that if you add a bunch of worthless sourcing it will make it look like this is more notable than it ireally is by filling up the reflist. If you have to resort to these kinds of sources, then it is quite clear that this article has no legs to stand on. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the tendency to make this discussion personal, User:Arzel. For the record, neither User:CartoonDiablo or myself added the Guy source. Previously uninvolved editor User:Monado helpfully added the prose and citation. Three editors have added or reapplied the source, only one has so far objected. Accusations of WP:GAME in edit summaries are particularly unhelpful (and are somewhat indicative). I could easily claim summary deletion of potential sources is itself a form of gaming. This process is by nature adversarial, but there's no reason for any of us to be adversaries. Since we're all here to create the best possible encyclopedia, I'd think we'd want to look at a broad range of sources before we conclude the page warrants deletion. I simply requested those already committed to deletion to allow those of us who don't agree to add sources without snap judgements on the part of any one editor. BusterD (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that one editor misuses sources does not mean that you and CD should add them back in. Why not add a buch of message board postings while you are at it. Arzel (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why can't you just agree with me and do exactly what I want?" asks the above editor. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-RS sources are valid during the AfD process." says the above editor. Arzel (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just one editor, there is another reverting the non-RS sources and I also agree that neither source meets WP:RS. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- easily meets WP:GNG, something apparent from even the most casual perusal of source/search results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate how it meets these guidelines or this !vote should be dismissed. I don't see it at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Krugman Appears to have very little current usage otherwise at all. Wikipedia is not a place for catchphrases used primarily by one person or character, but such catchphrases can certainly be used in the article about that person or character. In the case at hand, Krugman is highly connected with usage of the catchphrase. Collect (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to have any articles about it, and is generally a term use solely by Paul Krugman and a handful of his acolytes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Paul Krugman. Wikipedia is not a blow horn for political mudslinging.--v/r - T P 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was G. K. Chesterton using it as a "blow horn" against George Bernard Shaw? The phrase has been around since the 1920s. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEOLOGISM--the previous AfD seemed to ignore WP:NEOLOGISM completely. It also seems like the article is mainly an excuse to insult the subjects in the guise of reporting which subjects are being insulted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. It's clear that this is a neologism, and the policy makes it very clear how you determine if it's notable enough to be kept (sorry for the lengthy copy and paste, but it's too relevant):

To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

The talk page also shows other uses of the term going back over a hundred years that demonstrate the 'definition' of this neologism on the article page is not even accurate original research, because it has been used in so many other ways. First Light (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul Krugman, with whom this phrase seems to be most closely associated. This article is adequately sourced and I don't agree that it's a 'BLP violation' or 'excuse to insult the subjects', but it's also not really a notable enough topic to justify its own article. Robofish (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there is overwhelming notability per WP:GNG as a phrase that has existed since the 1920s. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an overwhelming exaggeration. Please explain which sources meet the requirements in WP:NEOLOGISM, which would be the only sources that count toward notability in WP:GNG. Remember, sources which only use the term rather than analyze and discuss how it is used and its history, etc., don't count toward GNG. Yworo (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous secondary sources and the primary ones are reliable. Even if we use 2006-07 as the start dates (as opposed to the 20s) then as a phrase it has been around for almost a decade, not exactly a neologism. But more to the point, primary sources in and of themselves are not a basis for article deletion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are simply incorrect. The sources almost all appear to have been misused. Primary sources are not reliable and consist of personal blog being used to source facts and in one case is being used gainst BLP policy to remark on another figure. As has been asked now by two seperate editors, someone needs to demonstrate how this article meets WP:GNG. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The use by Krugman et alia as described here has little or nothing to do with the way Chesterton was using it; indeed, reading Chesterton, it's not clear that he intended the phrase to be a proper name at all. The invocation of Chesterton seems to be a COATRACK for modern political opinionation. Substantially concur with Ken Arromdee's assessment. Choess (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Previous uses are clearly not about the same thing, so this is clearly a WP:NEOLOGISM. That page says:

"We must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term... blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms"

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article on a non-notable neologism exists solely to be a WP:COATRACK to repeat insults against politicians that editors don't like. Peacock (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Krugman. Page may be insufficiently supported at this time, but I suspect we'll be back here again when notable politicians start including this term in their communications. BusterD (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of this datestamp, I have removed all mention of living people classified as "Very Serious People". There's no BLP issue with the current form of the article, and the BLP standard need not be applied to a concept, a concept which otherwise meets GNG. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, sourced, certainly as widely used as Bush Derangement Syndrome. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that article out. It also does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:NEOLOGISM and so your argument is really no better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yworo (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - One third of my argument. You might have missed the rest of it. Gamaliel (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not properly sourced. Not sourced with sources that establish notability, so neither assertion is true. The sources are all WP:PRIMARY sources, and primary sources don't count toward satisfying either WP:NEOLOGISM or WP:GNG. Which sources do you assert are WP:SECONDARY? Be specific so each can be confirmed or rebutted. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Will you be closing this discussion or do you just like to argue? I'll leave my argument as it is for the closing administrator to judge as he or she sees fit, thanks though. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what I thought. You either don't know the difference between a primary and secondary source or don't care. Or this is a tacit admission that none of the sources are secondary and that you can't show how notability is specifically established by such sources. I'm sure the closer will see through such an unsupported argument, so no worries on my side about this failure to be specific. Yworo (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Or I know the difference but don't feel like feeding your trolling by arguing about it. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
borderline keep I find at least one book hit [13], and it's all over GNews. Possibly a bit premature but there's some evidence here that it will have some staying power beyond just Krugman saying it. I agree that the Chesterton linkage is dubious at best. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be just a mention, doesn't really define or discuss the term itself in any depth as WP:NEOLOGISM suggests we need. We'd need two sources which actually do that to then meet WP:GNG. Yworo (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't go through all the GNews hits looking for people who define it further, but I take book hits generally as sufficient evidence of notability for a term, whether or not they spell out a definition. As you say, though, one such hit is less than utterly convincing. It's choir practice night but perhaps in a day or so I can go through Gnews looking for a definition. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not just a definition, but a discussion of the usage, history, etc. Just like any other subject, _in depth_ or _significant_ coverage. See WP:42. What you are seeing on GNews is almost certainly usages of the term. And don't forget to put "Very Serious Person" in quotation marks. I see _75_ results. That's not many at all. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Chris Hayes source has been added. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect. Not only is it not notable, there are WP:BLP violations which continue to pop up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the one referred to by BusterD (talk · contribs) above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link. CBS news uses it. [14] Paul Krugman of the New York Times uses it a lot.[15] Many other places use it also, with capital letters for the start of each word, such as here. [16] CBS news talks about "the Very Serious People community".[17] Dream Focus 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even read WP:NEOLOGISM? It specifically says that usage is not what makes a neologism notable. Yworo (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word is at least seven years old. How is that neologism? Dream Focus 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - - OK, it's a paleologism. Can we move on to something important, please? This AfD and the related Bush Derangement Syndrome 7th AfD are truly disheartening. (Yes, 7th. It's called 6th, but that's because there are two different "2nds". Which pretty much sums up the whole thing.) Really, there's got to be something more important to do. Like, perhaps, creating a "These are not the droids for which you are looking" article. 'Cause as long as we're wasting time on foolishness, we might as well correct Obi-Wan's error in ending a sentence with a preposition, y'know? David in DC (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the 6th, not the 7th. One of the two "2nd"s is a redirect to the other. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is it in the dictionary? No? Then it's either not notable or still a neologism. Linguistic assimilation of neologisms is very slow, as it should be. Yworo (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bootylicious is in the Oxford dictionary. Words get put in rather quickly and easily these days, however phrases do not. Dream Focus 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Specialized political glossaries? Don't see any of those on the refs list either. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What does age have to do with it? Santorum is ten years old. It is a WP:NEOLOGISM. (Perhaps not actually. It appears that the name chnage also takes that distinction away and makes it a campaign to make it a neologism.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC) --Amadscientist (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Krugman. For better or worse, it's his "term" and the sourcing doesn't indicate any widespread usage. We don't and shouldn't have an article for every phrase a columnist likes to bandy about. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic
Redirect to Wikieditors taking themselves far too seriously while wasting far too much of everyone else's time and energy Syndrome. David in DC (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Article is just an attempt to use Wikipedia for popularizing some obscure American political neologism. Also no redirecting to anywhere.--Staberinde (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it maybe used Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The subject itself has not received continued significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. I see blurbs of the phrase but nothing that I would consider significant coverage where the subject of this article is the primary subject of the source. Therefore failing WP:GNG, the subject is not notable, and should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class. WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:GNG. Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Bonewah and the fact that there is no significant discussion or analysis about the phrase. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. All seem to agree that this is a borderline case, but not on which side of the border it is... Sandstein 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Luter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that this person meets the notability requirements of WP:NMUSIC. There appears to be but a single news article on this person. The bulk of the article, which seems more like an essay or memoir, does not actually put much focus on this person's actual music career. The multiple issues template that has matters going back to 2008 provides further indication that this is not an encyclopedic topic. Agent 86 (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep this along with two Chicago Sun-Times articles that are behind a paywall from the Google News search link above suggest that he may pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found what appear to be additional sources here and here. Seems to just barely scrape by notability guidelines, and if the guy is a relatively new artist then that notability has the possibility of increasing in the future. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete - The two links MezzoMezzo found hardly mention him and that seems to be case with the results I'm finding, fakeshoredrive.com has pages of short blog entries which mention him in passing mostly for working with several other people and appearing on compilations. Despite searching Google News multiple times including his album, singles and mixtapes, I haven't found anything substantial. I also found another short blog entry here which mentions his 2008 mixtape and some of its singles and this (another brief mention). Google News archives found some results here (Chicago event listing), here (Portuguese blog), the two Chicago Sun-Times articles mentioned above here and here (this last one describes him as "up and coming", yet this was 2007 and there hasn't been that much substantial attention since), here (one of his collaborations, brief mention) and here (brief mention). He has received attention for working with several people including notable ones but it seems there hasn't been any substantial coverage solely about him which is required. This would have satisfied me if it wasn't more than an image and headline comparing him to Kanye West and this also compares him to Kanye West. I have found two links (doubledoor.net and ReverbNation) which say he won the "2007 Sony Music Nation" Award but I haven't found any appropriate and useful links (not even a Sony-associated link). Considering these short blogs and the attention from his hometown of Chicago, he's a little bit short of the bar for me but he may have potential for more significant attention in the future. Therefore, I have no prejudice towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The coverage in the Chicago Tribune and in the Sun-Times is enough to squeak by our notability guidelines, in my view: WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Swister. Most, if not all of the coverage of the subject seems trivial. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (cleanup in progress) (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hanson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable radio personality. (The article is so full of puffery that it's difficult to tell what is legit). GrapedApe (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a notable radio personality. Much of the problems for this page are my fault as the writer. I wrote this a long time ago and didn't know much about the way the citations worked.

The radio show which he is on is syndicated in several markets and is very well known through out the southern US. It's called the John Boy and Billy Big Show. Instead of deleting the page itself. I would consider eliminating what you might call "puffery" for things that can't be cited. How long do I have to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refriedm (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of edits and added some refs. I feel this should be sufficient to keep his page up. This is a notable individual. Refriedm —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think since Refriedm's amendments it has solved the content problems of the article. 31.68.204.143 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the creator's comments, the problems were with the article's composition and sourcing, not the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article had made a notable career. I think the problem is in the way the article is presented but after a few edits it will be good. pendee4 (talk) 15.06, 11 03 2013 (UTC)

Snow keep per established consensus that the topic is notable, but the issue was with the article's structure and style, rather than the notability. Go Phightins! 00:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zahe Battery[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable company. I'm unable to find any sources using both the English and German spelling of the company name. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 03:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could find were listings on commmercial websites; there don't seem to be any secondary sources establishing notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any notable sources for this one, only things I could find were pages associated with the business itself, no secondary sources for notability. Sodaant (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article needs work, mer MezzoMezzo. Keeper | 76 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable advertising[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources that actually discuss topic, only tangential WP:OR. Seems to have been used exclusively as a platform for different companies to promote themselves. Examples of topic given are too similar to what's covered in Green PR to warrant a different article. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Just a comment: I believe that this article is not similar enough to Green PR to say that two articles are not warranted. Green PR refers to advertising about the particular company's efforts in the "Green movement". On the other hand, this article refers to advertising in a way that the advertising itself is environmentally friendly. One is referring to a particular content trend in advertisement while the other is referring to a "Green" method of advertisement. These might sound similar, but I believe when you think about it they are two very different things. However, I am going with neutral on this one because I believe the article does need cleanup so as to not just be a repository of "look at how good this company is" type content and I'm not sure if that's doable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. My reasoning is that most of the sources I have been able to find using the term 'sustainable advertising', (and variations I could think of) have been discussing either Green PR, or just as often Greenwashing, which is also related, but different. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. This seems like a difficult case. Obviously, it is different enough from Green PR and Greenwashing to make merging inappropriate. Even if, theoretically, this subject is notable (not claiming that it is), the article itself would need a lot of work. Would anybody be willing to see if we can work with a defined period of time, say two weeks, by which there will be a second AfD discussion? The lack of interest (and hence lack of consensus) could be alleviated by spending time on the article; after that, it might be easier to say definitely whether the subject is truly notable or not. Any thoughts? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a reasonable topic, and has some good sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kitfoxxe. Several of the article's links appear to be out of date, and there is substantial room for further development, but it should be further developed, not deleted. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Slabyk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person; Self-created/edited page Mhoskins (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query before voting: are you sure that the subject created and/or edited this page himself? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am relatively positive. The article contains references, but none of those references actually mention subject by name. All links in the External Links section are links that are not publicly linked from anywhere else, and are all personal sites of subject. All significant content and references have all been added from the same two IP addresses that are both located in the same physical location as the person mentioned in the article. In addition, the edit made by "Humanot" (also the name of one of subject's websites) in October 2009 is consistent with the anonymous edits made around the same period. Mhoskins (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no evidence that this is self created or that the deleter has checked the subject complies with the relevant WP notability guidelines . BO | Talk 14:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This deleter has checked all notability guidelines and followed procedure properly. Please see above reply to MezzoMezzo above for further evidence. Mhoskins (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idharkuthane Aasaipattai Balakumara[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this film has started shooting so fails WP:NFF and WP:BALL LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 10:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy back to its author. While the planned film does have some coverage in reliable sources, it does not have anyway near enough to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. Topic is simply TOO SOON for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PennYo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college a capella club. Not signed to a record label, no major hits, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hence, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Wikipedia:No one cares about your college a capella group. GrapedApe (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mass of sources do not show how this band is notable. A mix of promotion, concert announcements, uni publications, passing mentions. Nothing independent that shows any depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kult (band). J04n(talk page) 13:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spokojnie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I haven't been able to establish it as notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Kult is, I believe, a major Polish musical group, alas, this is far from my specialty or interests. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I can certainly find the band notable, per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings, the album must be notable on its own for it to have its own article, and I cannot find any sources to support general notability of the album itself. Sodaant (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kult (band). Someone who speaks Polish might be able to find some significant coverage, but I was unable to. In any case, there are definitely mentions of this album in reliable sources so it's a valid search term and at least worth a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to userfy if anyone wants it. Jenks24 (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced article about a new web site that fails WP:WEBCRIT. Unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability. Tried Google News, Google Books, HighBeam, Questia and NewsBank. - Mr X 02:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As PROD endorser. This was created three months ago, and fails WP:WEB by far. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Definitely fails WP:WEB. –TC N7 JM 02:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This web site is apparently a shopping search engine for used clothes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because it's a search engine does not meet it could not be notable. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No: but the nomination didn't mention what kind of website it was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible delete and userfy - As usual, native countries may cover the website and the language may be Arabic but a search at The Daily Star and Google News did not provide anything. It's probably becoming popular but still new, considering the links are fairly recent including this one. Aside from this, I found blogs like Tumblr and nothing substantial. I have no prejudice towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as the nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California Burrito Co.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Delete~~ Nomination withdrawn - ~~Mediocre article about a small burrito chain of questionable notability. (Note: By the way, the article was written by company co-founder User:Jordanmetzner's single-purpose account.)~~ User:Northamerica1000 has fixed up the article for now, and so I withdraw my nomination for now. If the COI paid editors who wrote the article return, though, I may nominate the article for deletion again. Unforgettableid (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources with significant coverage include: [18], [19], [20]. Additional independent sources (shorter coverage): [21], [22], [23]; mentions: [24], [25]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing up the article. But please do put the article on your watchlist, since I'm sure company staff will be back to resume their paid COI editing. Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Quickly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains no valuble info whatsoever, no sources, no nothing Bertaut (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, expand and reference. This character appeared in four, count them, four plays by William Shakespeare, and a Google Books search shows discussion in many reliable sources, especially books about the Bard's female characters. The University of Florida published a monograph about this character, for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree entirely with the nominator's comment, but isn't that a good argument for adding such things rather than for deleting the article? I'm a bit curious about this nomination, because the nominator has a very strong record of work on Shakespeare-related articles and I was able to easily find a number of sources that analyse the character in some detail:

Speak the Speech!: Shakespeare's Monologues Illuminated by Rhona Silverbush & Sami Plotkin (Macmillan, 2002)
The Women of Shakespeare's Plays: Analysis of the Role of the Women in Select Plays with Plot Synopses and Selected One-Act Plays by Courtni Crump Wright (University Press of America, 1993)
Female Friendship Alliances in Shakespeare by Milinda Jay (ProQuest, 2008) - ~~not sure about this publisher~~.
The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's History Plays by Michael Hattaway (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

And there are plenty more. Unless I'm missing something? Stalwart111 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aroint this discussion forthwith per Cullen and Stalwart. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well my thinking is the article has sat untouched for some time now. I'm certainly not planning on getting around to do any work on it any time soon; the fact that there is info which is readily available doesn't necessairly mean that a decent article will ever get written. And given the inactivity in general as regards Shakespeare related topics on Wikipedia (we're down to single figure regular editors now), I think the chances of anyone else doing so are slim to none. Recently an article on Katherina Minola was deleted and changed to a redirect to The Taming of the Shrew for the same reason. There is plenty of info on her out there (much more than on Mistress Quickly in fact), but the article contained no info and was inactive. No one was going to expand it, so it was deleted. I just don't see the point in having an article that is unassessed, tells us nothing and has no sources. I see the point that she's in four plays, but what does that really have to do with anything. So is Bardolph (and he has a lot more lines than her), he doesn't have an article. Peto is in three, he doesn't have an article. Margaret of Anjou is in four and there is virtually nothing relating to her as a literary figure on Wikipedia. I don't really mind one way or the other whether it gets deleted or not to be honest, it seems like a pointless 'thing' to exist. By the rational of the arguments above, virtually every character in Shakespeare should have an article on here, as they all might be expanded at some time in the future. Bertaut (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for explaining your rationale - it makes sense to me. I suppose my view is that we should have articles for each of those characters and it's a shame there aren't more editors around to contribute to their expansion. But I am comforted in that regard by WP:NORUSH. I'm a member of WikiProject Skateboarding - a project with two active members and a couple of people who work on related things when they have time. I know we won't get around to everything, but we do our best to do as much as possible. Though AFD is not for clean-up, perhaps bringing it here will prompt some people to do a bit of work on it. Stalwart111 03:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Might it be useful to merge this brief article into List of Shakespearean characters: L-Z#M? Note the entry for 'Nell'. Praemonitus (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current content doesn't hurt anything, and the vast literature on Shakespeare means that there's tons of coverage related to this character. As far as the Milinda Jay source — it's her Ph.D. dissertation from Florida State University, so we'd have to have really strong evidence before questioning its conclusions. ProQuest is the company that's made it available, but its role isn't quite the same as that of Cambridge UP for the Hattaway Book; even if they hadn't come along, you'd still be able to get Jay's dissertation through FSU Libraries, in all likelihood. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has a character description and five solid references. No policy based argument for deletion has been advanced. If the nominator thinks other Shakespeare characters are more deserving of an article, then the solution is simple: write articles about those characters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a little content as did other people. The character is notable due to coverage in books, and since she has appeared in highly notable films and operas (e.g. Chimes at Midnight, Falstaff (opera)) as well as in some very famous plays, we can expect to find much more coverage. The original reason for deletion does not apply because the article now contains some information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archeology (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One album on a local label, a couple of additional singles and a minor tour does not pass WP:MUSIC. Add to the fact that their MySpace and Facebook pages are not upto date, and their website ArcheologyMusic.com is laid-up at GoDaddy, and it all adds up to a spun advert article for a non-notable band - Rgds, Trident13 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—just another one of those bands... fails WP:N; there just aren't enough reliable sources that comment on the act. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable band, definitely fails WP:NBAND. Revolution1221 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm seeing bits of coverage around, including brief write-ups tied to upcoming concert appearances (e.g., [26][27]) and an interview with Filter magazine [28]. Seems too weak on the whole, however; not convinced there's enough to meet WP:BAND. Gong show 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

^ ""EWD Hosting"". Retrieved 12 March 2013.

[1] ""EWD Hosting"". Retrieved 12 March 2013.

[1]